As a Biotechnologist, (someone who deals with the practical applications of Biology that can benefit the world- ie Biofuels), I am increasingly becoming worried about the waste of Gov. taxpayers dollars spent in attempts to affirm evolutionary belief in endless studies.

Wouldn't that money be better spend elsewhere? (like Biotechnology )

In other words what is the purpose of attempting to prove evolution, apart from attempting to provide some form of substance to the atheistic worldview.

Also, what practical applications can come from evolution? (and just evolution)

i posed this to the tes a while back and they said so much has been learned on this that has benefitted man. so we cant use practical science to help others.? this is a problem that the idea of naturalism has to be taught. when in fact if we said we dont know nor care how we got here just that we have what we see and what mistakes from human history to learn from. i dont think we would have any issue with that.just study and observe and make the conclusion from falfisable results

I'm a bit confused by this question; do you have any examples of studies whose only aim is to prove evolution ? As far as I know, the idea that evolution happened, and works roughly though the mechanisms of mutations, natural selection & drift is considered settled science in biology and there aren't studies trying to prove it nowadays anymore than physicists are still trying to "prove" general relativity or the standard model. There are tons of studies investigating the mechanisms in more detail, trying to quantify how evolution works and finding out how various specific things evolved, just like physicists are still investigating how general relativity and quantum physics can work with each other and how they apply in different environments... But I don't think there would be much interest in a study the only aim of which was to prove evolution.

But what's even more confusing to me is that shouldn't you WANT such studies ? I would have thought you objected to evolution being considered settled science, so I'm surprised you wouldn't welcome studies that aim to find out whether it actually happened or not.

Another writer who follows contradictory illogic is Brian Leith, who shows there is reason to be skeptical of Darwinism but nevertheless remains a firm believer in evolution and is its unflinching apologist. Darwinism cannot necessarily be considered science, he says, because it cannot be currently tested. Yet, he announces that it "passes muster" as science even though it is not falsifiable by ready observation. Leith, like Ruse, is thinking of how evolutionists can theorize about what they would find in the past if evolution was true and then test their theories by observing, among other things, the fossil record. (Leith cites philosopher Popper for defense and a murder trial for an example of gathering evidence as science without a "scientific" test.) Yet, when he discusses creationism he says that creationism has no scientific merit. For proof, he asks us to consider how a creationist might falsify creationism through experiment. Leith forgets that he has already said Darwinism cannot be falsified through experiment, but has contended that it "passes muster" as science. Yet, when Leith needs to lash out at creationism, he insists that it must "pass muster" as science by being falsifiable through experiment. Apparently evolution can achieved favored status and pass the test of the liberalized standard of "science" while creationism must pass a more rigorous standard. (43

As a Biotechnologist, (someone who deals with the practical applications of Biology that can benefit the world- ie Biofuels), I am increasingly becoming worried about the waste of Gov. taxpayers dollars spent in attempts to affirm evolutionary belief in endless studies.

Wouldn't that money be better spend elsewhere? (like Biotechnology )

In other words what is the purpose of attempting to prove evolution, apart from attempting to provide some form of substance to the atheistic worldview.

Also, what practical applications can come from evolution? (and just evolution)

What a strange question for a biotechnologist. I thought evolution was one of the most important theories in biology and that it influenced a lot of other fields of science. Imo evolution does influence how certain fields try to explain their findings, and I have nothing against that because evolution is recognised as a scientific theory. I'm often amazed how important and reoccurent evolution is at the moment. Because this theory is so widely spread and used, I think it is very important to continue research upon it to learn more about it. Research should lead towards two options: affirming it or falsifying/conflicting with it.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by ' attempts to affirm evolutionary belief in endless studies'. If this means the research I mentioned above, I can't possibly see why anyone would be against it. So I assume that's not what you mean. Could you shed some light on what is actually going on?

not really, if we want to find a cure for what kills say the trout as blight. we dont need to know where the trout came from. we only need to study what is killing the trout. we dont need to go the origins of the trout.
its like this. my car wont start. do i need to know how the model a was built and worked or just know how to diagnose the starting issue

I'm a bit confused by this question; do you have any examples of studies whose only aim is to prove evolution ? As far as I know, the idea that evolution happened, and works roughly though the mechanisms of mutations, natural selection & drift is considered settled science in biology and there aren't studies trying to prove it nowadays anymore than physicists are still trying to "prove" general relativity or the standard model. There are tons of studies investigating the mechanisms in more detail, trying to quantify how evolution works and finding out how various specific things evolved, just like physicists are still investigating how general relativity and quantum physics can work with each other and how they apply in different environments... But I don't think there would be much interest in a study the only aim of which was to prove evolution.

But what's even more confusing to me is that shouldn't you WANT such studies ? I would have thought you objected to evolution being considered settled science, so I'm surprised you wouldn't welcome studies that aim to find out whether it actually happened or not.

Actually there are plenty of useless studies that people do.... (Basically because they have studied to be an evolutionary biologist and hence cannot do much else).

We had to write a paper on the Wollemi pine last year, about the "controversy" of where it fit within the evolutionary tree of life, (ie where in the clade). There were many studies done, and no conclusive results, this one said this and that one said that etc etc...Using this example, what is the use knowing the EXACT location of the Wollemi pine in the evolutionary tree of life, (which is an arbitrary man-made construct anyway, so there really is no point since being man-made it has no explanatory power about reality)

I would prefer to see studies done that actually tackle the PROBLEMS with evolution, not to fuss over some semantic detail, and then have countess studies verify the original study (hence it continues on and on).

i understand your postion. but with that statement it kinda makes the case moot to do studies.

Good find Jason. Its a shame that people do not catch on... or do not want to.

I agree about the trout issue. Its like when I studied physiology, we were told that only people who believed in evolution would be good doctors.... Despite knowing where our ancestors came from has literally nothing to do with treating a patient.

i have posted that on another forum. when they admit that then we know its a religion. but of course they wll hemhaw around that fact and say well its a creationist lie. as they always say creationists either lie or are in denial or stupid.like i said . if its in a book it must be fact unless its the bible.question the bible first and that only but nothing else.

i understand your postion. but with that statement it kinda makes the case moot to do studies.

Evolution is falsifiable even if we cannot observe it directly. There are numerous possibilities to falsify evolution. But in the end, what does it matter for now? The current model for evolution seems to be a good one and serves its purpose in science, which is good because science helps humanity (yes, I know some people could refer to nuclear bombs for instance and forget all the lives saved by science for a moment but all in all science is good for us). If new evidence is brought up, they'll have to correct their idea about how 'macro' evolution works, if it does at all. I can imagine that it does matter a lot more to religious people but I honestly wonder why. It is not like science is the ultimate truth. Science is only mankind's best model of reality (or best useful model or approximate reality). This is where I also agree: how does creationism help out? What scientific value does it offer? If tommorow macro-evolution is replaced by YEC, what impact would that have scientifically speaking? This isn't a question to taunt people. I'd like to hear some opinions/insights on this. I can come up with one you'll probably all going to say: knowing the truth. I don't equate science with the truth so what else can you offer me?

I agree that some people attach way too much weigth to science. I'm all for teaching what science actually is, how it works and how it has been wrong in history w/o having to ignore its merits. All this, I hope, will remove the whole idea of science as a religion thing. I really, really like science. And that must include the idea that you might be wrong, that evolution might be wrong and that it it could be replaced one day with a better model (which can be completely different because we can be very wrong).

That being said, I disagree that evolution, or at least parts of it, aren't scientific. That it is only a 'religion'. Micro-evolution, which is part of evolution, is accepted by everyone afaik. Some parts of evolution are based upon historical science, which isn't a problem by itself. Historical science is used quite a lot. However, I dislike people like Dawkins who try to force evolution to everyone and who tries to tell people what to believe and most importantly: what not to believe.

Evolution is falsifiable even if we cannot observe it directly. There are numerous possibilities to falsify evolution. But in the end, what does it matter for now? The current model for evolution seems to be a good one and serves its purpose in science, which is good because science helps humanity (yes, I know some people could refer to nuclear bombs for instance and forget all the lives saved by science for a moment but all in all science is good for us). If new evidence is brought up, they'll have to correct their idea about how 'macro' evolution works, if it does at all. I can imagine that it does matter a lot more to religious people but I honestly wonder why. It is not like science is the ultimate truth. Science is only mankind's best model of reality (or best useful model or approximate reality). This is where I also agree: how does creationism help out? What scientific value does it offer? If tommorow macro-evolution is replaced by YEC, what impact would that have scientifically speaking? This isn't a question to taunt people. I'd like to hear some opinions/insights on this. I can come up with one you'll probably all going to say: knowing the truth. I don't equate science with the truth so what else can you offer me?

I agree that some people attach way too much weigth to science. I'm all for teaching what science actually is, how it works and how it has been wrong in history w/o having to ignore its merits. All this, I hope, will remove the whole idea of science as a religion thing. I really, really like science. And that must include the idea that you might be wrong, that evolution might be wrong and that it it could be replaced one day with a better model (which can be completely different because we can be very wrong).

That being said, I disagree that evolution, or at least parts of it, aren't scientific. That it is only a 'religion'. Micro-evolution, which is part of evolution, is accepted by everyone afaik. Some parts of evolution are based upon historical science, which isn't a problem by itself. Historical science is used quite a lot. However, I dislike people like Dawkins who try to force evolution to everyone and who tries to tell people what to believe and most importantly: what not to believe.

Actually the proof is in the pudding dude.

Whenever evidence has come about that refutes evolution- living fossils, complexity of cell, no transitions in the fossil record.

There is ALWAYS an ad hoc explaination there to explain away the problem. The fact of the matter is that this puts evolution into the pseudoscience category

If creationism took over it would be "business as usual" you forget that before Darwin science operated on the inference of design, people like Newton were able to do their science, (great science), even with the belief in creation. The problem here is that evolutionists dramatise and demonise the creation viewpoint whereby they claim that some intellectual calamity will occur if scientists allow just the hint of design into science.

Micro evolution is not an actual part of evolution. Do you have empirical evidence that such variations (micro evolutionary)changes can lead to macro evolutionary changes. If you don't then it is an assumption, and assumptions are not scientific. Historical "science" is not actual science it is not empirical and therefore doesn't follow the scientific method.... (which evolutionists claim IDists and creationists have to fit into...hmm.. double standards)

Actually there are plenty of useless studies that people do.... (Basically because they have studied to be an evolutionary biologist and hence cannot do much else).

There are plenty of “useless” studies that people do in all fields of science out of scientific curiosity and a desire to expand our general knowledge of the world. The reason why we fund them is as always “because we can't guess in advance which fields of study will yield which practical applications, so it's often advantageous to let scientists run with what they're interested in”. Knowing more about the world is rarely a bad thing.

We had to write a paper on the Wollemi pine last year, about the "controversy" of where it fit within the evolutionary tree of life, (ie where in the clade). There were many studies done, and no conclusive results, this one said this and that one said that etc etc...Using this example, what is the use knowing the EXACT location of the Wollemi pine in the evolutionary tree of life

That's not an example of studies which are done just to affirm evolution. Also, it's a question which I'm sure is of great interest to people who study Wollemi pines. As for the general question of what the use is of knowing something's position in the evolutionary tree of life, it has implications both on that thing's evolutionary history (which may yield insights into how things evolve in general), and on its relatedness to other species, which can have implications for conservation or the study of the thing itself.

As for studies looking the mechanisms of evolution, I wasn't only referring to genetic mechanisms but there are those too. You have the interplay between evolution and development, the better understanding of how genes work with things like epigenetics that affect the relationship between the genotype and the phenotype, the eternal questions of the relative importance of drift vs natural selection, the just-as-eternal questions surrounding group selection, kin selection and the evolution of altruism...

Can you please cite some papers dealing with the "mechanisms" of evolution. The actual genetic mechanisms, like how information can be increased in DNA

Irreducible complexity and the increase of information in DNA aren't theoretical problems with evolution – the mechanisms of evolution allow irreducibly complex systems to evolve and “information” in DNA to increase. And I don't know which observed cases of limitation to change you're thinking of. There's a theoretical limit on the amount of change we can expect of observe directly, and that's the amount of time and generations we've been looking. If any other limitations have been reported I'd be glad to look them up.

That said for every specific systems some people bring up as being irreducibly complex and thus “unevolvable” - such as the bacterial flagellum, or the immune system cascade – there are papers out there looking at how those systems could have or did evolve :

http://www.sciencedi...955067409002130“Reducing irreducible complexity: divergence of quaternary structure and function in macromolecular assemblies”(that one specifically addresses the Intelligent Design arguments on using the bacterial flagellum as an example of irreducible complexity, and its citations seem to give a good overview of the literature on this)http://www.evolutionarygenomics.com/7620/Reading/NatRevImm10ImmSysevolve.pdf"How did our complex immune system evolve"

As for how the “information” in DNA can increase, while that question isn't very well-posed (it depends on how you define “information”) and for most common definitions of “information” it's quite trivial, there ARE questions related to the evolution of complexity and/or information. For example, the problem of Muller's ratchet (which can be dealt with in a number of different ways, here's a recent one : http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2939, “Rare beneficial mutations can halt Muller's ratchet”, and conversely a possible example of Muller's ratchet in action : “http://www.genetics....185/1/339.short”, “Muller's Ratchet and the Degeneration of the Drosophila miranda Neo-Y Chromosome”).

Actually the proof is in the pudding dude.Whenever evidence has come about that refutes evolution- living fossils, complexity of cell, no transitions in the fossil record.There is ALWAYS an ad hoc explaination there to explain away the problem. The fact of the matter is that this puts evolution into the pseudoscience category

Why does the complexity of a cell disprove evolution? I also don't see any real problems with the big lines of evolution in the fossil record. I also must admit while talking about the fossil record that evolution is pretty vague on what to expect specifically. The big lines of evolution and what it predicts are clear, the large and small details about macro-evolution are rather vague imo, which is why it allows to be modified according to the findings and not be dismissed right away.

What imo, would dismiss evolution clear and simple: limitations to genetic drift because that would prove that you cannot extrapolate micro-evolution to macro-evolution. I'm sure other examples can be found.

I disagree that evolution should be classified as pseudo-science but I understand why you say that.

If creationism took over it would be "business as usual" you forget that before Darwin science operated on the inference of design, people like Newton were able to do their science, (great science), even with the belief in creation. The problem here is that evolutionists dramatise and demonise the creation viewpoint whereby they claim that some intellectual calamity will occur if scientists allow just the hint of design into science.

What do you mean by 'operated on the inference of design'? I agree that science shouldn't exclude other ideas or people with other beliefs. In fact, I personally welcome people with different ideas and beliefs into science. What is a prerequisite imo is that you should be able to switch your ideas if you are proven wrong. That's more important imo than having ideas that differ. Beliefs on the other hand give you different perspective on life and thus different people with different beliefs will provide science with more possible solutions to the questions left unanswered.

Micro evolution is not an actual part of evolution. Do you have empirical evidence that such variations (micro evolutionary)changes can lead to macro evolutionary changes. If you don't then it is an assumption, and assumptions are not scientific. Historical "science" is not actual science it is not empirical and therefore doesn't follow the scientific method.... (which evolutionists claim IDists and creationists have to fit into...hmm.. double standards)

I'm not quite sure what is being taught over the ocean but here, in europe, micro-evolution is part of evolution.

Afaik macro is an extrapolation of micro over time. It was an hypothesis that has been tested and which has become a theory. Claiming historical science is not actual science does worry me a bit. What is your definition of historical science? How is it applied to non-origin theories for instance?

[quote] name='aelyn' timestamp='1329395477' post='80059']
I'm a bit confused by this question; do you have any examples of studies whose only aim is to prove evolution ? As far as I know, the idea that evolution happened, and works roughly though the mechanisms of mutations, natural selection &amp; drift is considered settled science in biology and there aren't studies trying to prove it nowadays anymore than physicists are still trying to "prove" general relativity or the standard model. There are tons of studies investigating the mechanisms in more detail, trying to quantify how evolution works and finding out how various specific things evolved, just like physicists are still investigating how general relativity and quantum physics can work with each other and how they apply in different environments... But I don't think there would be much interest in a study the only aim of which was to prove evolution.[/quote]

Aelyn

You wrote that "evolution happens through mutations." Evolutionists argue that mutations occasionally have a survival value in that they improve survival value; they improve the organism under certain circumstances. And this is true. But mutatations have NEVER been observed to add "brand-new" information, and thus mutations can't be the driving mechanism of evolution. Mutations can cause duplication but never add new information--which is necessary for evolution. Why is this? Several reasons:

Information is not physical or material. It is not part of the physical universe.

There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events that can cause information to originate by itself from matter.

When information's progress along a chain of transmission events is traced backward, every piece of information leads to a mental source--the mind of a Sender.

So I must ask how you know that evolution works? You can't know how evolution works if it is not first proven to be true that evolution works? You admit that there are some scientific truths that are settled and you use general relativity as an example. Why doesn't the settled science of thermodynamics--which destroys the possibility of this universe exploding from nothing into existence and that matter can be eternal--cause you to question your worldview?

[quote]But what's even more confusing to me is that shouldn't you WANT such studies ? I would have thought you objected to evolution being considered settled science, so I'm surprised you wouldn't welcome studies that aim to find out whether it actually happened or not.
[/quote]

Is this a little Special Plleading here, Aelyn? In America, if a creationist attempts to teach creation in schools or colleges, he loses his job or goes to jail and is fined or both. We can't even get a creationist's nose under the tent without it being cut off.

May I present your post to you:

First I agree that any philosophy that arbitrarily dismisses the possibility of an alternative to be potentially true is a bad philosophy. And naturalism arbitrarily dismisses the possibility of a supernatural origin before it starts its quest for what is true. Methodological naturalism is the belief that we should approach science from the perspective of naturalism--regardless of whether or not naturalism is actually true. In other words, even if a methodological naturalist might believe in God, but he or she believes that we should restrict our conclusions to natural explanations--we should essentially pretend that God does not exist when we approach science.

Such an approach is arbitrary and irrational. Why should we dismiss the possibility of creation before any investigation of the evidence? The notion makes even less sense for those who are convinced that God does not exist. Why would a theist assume to practice the exact opposite of his conviction? Unless it is possible to prove that God does not exist (which it isn't), to simply assume that He does not (if only in methodology) is arbitrary and without justification. Methodological naturalism is irrational. Imagine a mechanical engineer studying the construction of a car while assuming that the car came about by natural forces. Such an approach would be absurd.

If creationism is true, then no natural causes will ever be discovered that will explain how the universe created itself from nothing or how it could have always been here. No natural explanation will ever be found to explain how logic, reason, information comes from matter if it is impossible for this to happen in the first place. I submit that naturalists are afraid to tell the king he has no clothes on.

1. There are plenty of “useless” studies that people do in all fields of science out of scientific curiosity and a desire to expand our general knowledge of the world. The reason why we fund them is as always “because we can't guess in advance which fields of study will yield which practical applications, so it's often advantageous to let scientists run with what they're interested in”. Knowing more about the world is rarely a bad thing.

2. That's not an example of studies which are done just to affirm evolution. Also, it's a question which I'm sure is of great interest to people who study Wollemi pines. As for the general question of what the use is of knowing something's position in the evolutionary tree of life, it has implications both on that thing's evolutionary history (which may yield insights into how things evolve in general), and on its relatedness to other species, which can have implications for conservation or the study of the thing itself.

3. As for studies looking the mechanisms of evolution, I wasn't only referring to genetic mechanisms but there are those too.

4. You have the interplay between evolution and development, the better understanding of how genes work with things like epigenetics that affect the relationship between the genotype and the phenotype,

5. the eternal questions of the relative importance of drift vs natural selection, the just-as-eternal questions surrounding group selection, kin selection and the evolution of altruism...

6. Irreducible complexity and the increase of information in DNA aren't theoretical problems with evolution – the mechanisms of evolution allow irreducibly complex systems to evolve and “information” in DNA to increase.

7. And I don't know which observed cases of limitation to change you're thinking of. There's a theoretical limit on the amount of change we can expect of observe directly, and that's the amount of time and generations we've been looking. If any other limitations have been reported I'd be glad to look them up.

8. That said for every specific systems some people bring up as being irreducibly complex and thus “unevolvable” - such as the bacterial flagellum, or the immune system cascade – there are papers out there looking at how those systems could have or did evolve :

http://www.sciencedi...955067409002130“Reducing irreducible complexity: divergence of quaternary structure and function in macromolecular assemblies”(that one specifically addresses the Intelligent Design arguments on using the bacterial flagellum as an example of irreducible complexity, and its citations seem to give a good overview of the literature on this)http://www.evolution...mmSysevolve.pdf"How did our complex immune system evolve"

9. As for how the “information” in DNA can increase, while that question isn't very well-posed (it depends on how you define “information”) and for most common definitions of “information” it's quite trivial, there ARE questions related to the evolution of complexity and/or information. For example, the problem of Muller's ratchet (which can be dealt with in a number of different ways, here's a recent one : http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2939, “Rare beneficial mutations can halt Muller's ratchet”, and conversely a possible example of Muller's ratchet in action : “http://www.genetics....185/1/339.short”, “Muller's Ratchet and the Degeneration of the Drosophila miranda Neo-Y Chromosome”).

1. Ah you're making the distinction between "pure science" and "practical science". Yes there are many studies done just for the sake of knowing something. These provide the foundation for practical science to exist.

However, the study I talked about was not a case of pure science, it was a case of splitting hairs. There is a difference between observing a phenomenon and documenting it, and a tirade of useless studies to attempt to fit one type of tree within a man-made chart, which has no representation of reality, just assumption based logic.

You can prove your point by showing what practical applications can come from finding out where the Wollemi is within its clade on the "tree of life". If you can't, then you must concede that these studies are utterly useless.

2. So fitting things into an "man-made chart" and assuming that it is a represntation of reality will give new insights. You do realise that the "tree of life" is entirely arbitrary, and has no basis of actual factual proof. Therefore attempting to find somethings place on it really is a never-ending useless endeavor since the chart is man-made it is applicable to change... Yet what do these changes mean?

As I asked before, please demonstrate how hairsplitting about where something is within a particular clade is useful.

3. If there are some please cite THEM... I have asked you for THEM.

I would have thought that genetic mechanisms would be the first and foremost since evolution is deigned to be genetic in cause.... Hmmm...

4. Epigenetics... How does that have anything to do with evolution? In fact a conclusion from epigenetics is that we can no longer use the % of DNA similarity since there is something else behind the scenes affecting the DNA products created... Meaning that 2 things can have the same DNA but be totally different due to the DNA producing totally different products- (they found that each gene in a human has an average of 20 different gene products, and these are the ones we know about....)

5. Again these are solely used to affirm evolution, (as I stated in the OP), how do these have a purpose outside of affirming evolution. What technologies can we discern from these?

It occurs in selective breeding programs, whereby a trait is exaggerated to the point that it causes health problems in the animal. See Persian cats (the ones with the squashed noses). Some can barely breathe

The same can be said for any animal. At the farm I used to work at, (we had pigs), more angular legs were a trait that was desired with the pigs, since it gives more spring in their jump for mating. However this trait also made leg problems more prominent as a straighter leg would be more under the bulk of the animal and thus can hold them up better.The same can be said for attempting to increase the size of the pig. Too long, (more ribs = more meat), and there will be back problems, too large and there will be other problems with their legs due to the weight load of the animal.

So the limits are imposed by the physical properties themselves. The only reason why you do not hear of this is because you do not look for it, "seek and you shall find"

8. How about you post evidence instead of just sites. (I believe this is against the forum rules).. I'm not going to waste my time reading a paper because you can't.

2. I also don't see any real problems with the big lines of evolution in the fossil record. I also must admit while talking about the fossil record that evolution is pretty vague on what to expect specifically. The big lines of evolution and what it predicts are clear, the large and small details about macro-evolution are rather vague imo, which is why it allows to be modified according to the findings and not be dismissed right away.

3. What imo, would dismiss evolution clear and simple: limitations to genetic drift because that would prove that you cannot extrapolate micro-evolution to macro-evolution. I'm sure other examples can be found.

4. I disagree that evolution should be classified as pseudo-science but I understand why you say that.

5. What do you mean by 'operated on the inference of design'? I agree that science shouldn't exclude other ideas or people with other beliefs. In fact, I personally welcome people with different ideas and beliefs into science.

6. What is a prerequisite imo is that you should be able to switch your ideas if you are proven wrong. That's more important imo than having ideas that differ. Beliefs on the other hand give you different perspective on life and thus different people with different beliefs will provide science with more possible solutions to the questions left unanswered.

7. I'm not quite sure what is being taught over the ocean but here, in europe, micro-evolution is part of evolution.

8. Afaik macro is an extrapolation of micro over time. It was an hypothesis that has been tested and which has become a theory.

9. Claiming historical science is not actual science does worry me a bit. What is your definition of historical science? How is it applied to non-origin theories for instance?

1. because there is no known mechanism of evolution that accounts for it, that is why. Or do you believe in stuff BEFORE the evidence is given???

2. I'm glad you don't have a problem with...

i) assuming that the fossil you have is an ancestor of another organismii) discounting the HUGE gapsiii) presupposing evolution is true in order to affirm the idea of common descent thus making the prediction of common traits based on this presupposition.iv) not allowing for affirmation of the assumption that these two fossils are descendants.

Such affirmation would come in the form of (literally thousands) of progressional forms from one state to the other. Just having one or two still means guesses need to be made, (and as we know guesses are not science), hence this progression is vital to affirming that the guesses made are indeed the right ones.

However you having or not having a problem with something doesn't mean that it is or isn't false

3. Limitation =

It occurs in selective breeding programs, whereby a trait is exaggerated to the point that it causes health problems in the animal. See Persian cats (the ones with the squashed noses). Some can barely breathe

The same can be said for any animal. At the farm I used to work at, (we had pigs), more angular legs were a trait that was desired with the pigs, since it gives more spring in their jump for mating. However this trait also made leg problems more prominent as a straighter leg would be more under the bulk of the animal and thus can hold them up better.The same can be said for attempting to increase the size of the pig. Too long, (more ribs = more meat), and there will be back problems, too large and there will be other problems with their legs due to the weight load of the animal.

So the limits are imposed by the physical properties themselves.

It occurs in selective breeding programs, whereby a trait is exaggerated to the point that it causes health problems in the animal. See Persian cats (the ones with the squashed noses). Some can barely breathe

The same can be said for any animal. At the farm I used to work at, (we had pigs), more angular legs were a trait that was desired with the pigs, since it gives more spring in their jump for mating. However this trait also made leg problems more prominent as a straighter leg would be more under the bulk of the animal and thus can hold them up better.The same can be said for attempting to increase the size of the pig. Too long, (more ribs = more meat), and there will be back problems, too large and there will be other problems with their legs due to the weight load of the animal.

So the limits are imposed by the physical properties themselves.

4. Thanks for understanding, very few evolutionists do

5. Great You're my kind of evolutionist.

Inference of design. As in the belief that there was a creator.

6. Sure, just be mindful that naturalism is also a belief system... (This is why I claim Dawkins as Religious since he is very pious and Religiously defends his beliefs)

7. I was taught the standard evo rap, I just prefer to think outside the box, rather than be told what to believe...

8. Pray tell, what was this "testing" to show that variations within the species, (micro) can become evolution (macro)

9. Actual science is empirical, based on the scientific method. Anything else is a social science- like archeology which uses reasoning and deduction rather than factual experimentation.

I know most will not like my definition but it is one that leaves no room for equivocation. The scientific method is empirical, hence for it to be regarded as scientific, (as per the scientific method), is to have empirical evidence.

The theory of evolution includes adaptation and general changes within a single species; in fact it's defined in its strictest sense as "changes in allele frequencies in a population over time". This includes micro-evolution. Thus, micro-evolution is part of evolution.

Using that definition isn't "being told what to believe", it's using words in a way that will be understood by the people you're talking to. If your definition of "evolution" is "the parts of the actual Theory of Evolution that I don't believe in", then saying you don't believe in evolution is completely meaningless.

The theory of evolution includes adaptation and general changes within a single species; in fact it's defined in its strictest sense as "changes in allele frequencies in a population over time". This includes micro-evolution. Thus, micro-evolution is part of evolution.

Using that definition isn't "being told what to believe", it's using words in a way that will be understood by the people you're talking to. If your definition of "evolution" is "the parts of the actual Theory of Evolution that I don't believe in", then saying you don't believe in evolution is completely meaningless.

If I made the definition that all the money in the world was my rightful property does that mean that I am now the richest man on the Earth?

No... Hence just because some person arbitrarily defines something as X then it doesn't mean that it actually is so.... (This is where some critical thinking comes in)

If you look at "changes in allele frequency over time", (yes it is what is being taught at university and schools)... It is in fact a misnomer.

You see, if I had a population of people 50% red hair and 50% blonde and over time this became 60% blonde and 40% red.... Then that is a change in allele frequency... Yet it does NOTHING for evolution as described by Darwin, which was new species originating from a single ancestor species. Its a very dishonest representation of what evolution is, and I abhor its use in teaching.

As John Mackay puts it

Define evolution as changeClaim all change is evolutionAssume all evidence of change is evidence of evolutionDismiss Creation as unthinkable

You see the allele frequency changes from parents to child so technically under that definition everyone is "evolving" yet it shows nothing in terms of verification that we are in fact doing so. In other words this definition of evolution, already presupposes that evolution is true by claiming all changes as evolution. Have we seen a fellow person "evolve" into a higher species? No, what we observe in reality is that things stay the same, (they may variate, but essentially they stay the same)